Bug Bug: Resign then opponent Fair Play Violation Warning

Just spotted a bug.

Game: https://www.chess.com/live/game/1863101041

Team Member's Game: https://www.chess.com/live/game/1863101042

We were stuck, in a lost position ... @intralith hadn't moved for a while. My team member and I were discussing. Next move (or two) was mate for my team member, and my opponent wasn't moving. (Time is a tactical, team decision in Bughouse.)

I hit "resign" -- and then received the standard warning (when someone times out or aborts too many games or disconnects): "intralith may have violated our Fair Play policy - it has been noted and they may have their account restricted."

This is unfair to inralith, and any other player who this warning comes up against, for this message to pop-up after an opponent resigns. I'm the opponent. I resigned. No warning should have been issued.

Yeah, running down the clock in bughouse is a very different matter from running it down in a two-player game.

I have no idea.  It depends on how they prioritise this compared to the other things they're working on.

It's probably a minor issue and should be fixed in a short period of time. Keep in mind that it is also the Holidays (and Bug is still new, and it's a minor issue), etc.

I was just reporting a minor bug. Not a big deal.

And it let you use the phrase "bug bug" in a way that is perfectly logical and meaningful.  That's gotta be worth something.

Yeah, I thought it was funny, at first, and then I saw another application for up to "bug bug bug" as well and it lost it's novelty.

I was also pondering variants in my back yard earlier today and thought about a "bug bug bug" variant ... where every 10 total moves across either board (%20==0)  flip-flops the team's white/black relationship. That's a "bug bug bug." But that variant will never happen. It's like trying to solve a tactical puzzle + bughouse (team sport). Like an interception (in Amurican Foosball). Time + switching boards would make that a 5-or-10-minute variant (instead of 3-or-5) -- and let's not get started on variant-variant wants/needs/desires again (that's just pure madness; as is this thought).

Don't ask me why I mention the later ... except it's a really buggy thought. Maybe I'll simply start referring to composite variants as "bug bug bug." And then we'd have "bug bug bug bug" for bugs across non-deterministic composite variants. Just add another "bug" for however variant combinations are composited, and then an additional "bug" for good measure to make sure everyone knows you're talking about a bug in some composite variant. (Or, don't mind me, I've been drinking.)

Yeah, don't let it bug you.

Too late. I already let it bug me too much and had to add more bugs (revised, re-read for more in-depth comprehension). Drink, drank, drunk ... buggy brain.

noted!